What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[savedbyjesus]

Progression from a simpler creature to a more complex creature is not evidence of intelligent design though, it can be said that there's a competitive advantage gained in the higher complexity of the organism, and therefore that's why more complex organisms are the evolutionary predecessors of less complex creatures. So this a prediction that ID makes, but that doesn't prove ID because a more robust and complete theory makes the same successful prediction.

Maybe because Darwinan evolution has had 150 years of time to become established?

Like all science it's a progression.

Regards,

Paul

 

[Hespera]

New feature.

Regards,

Paul

Oh my.. sorry not to make myself clear. i meant, what would you consider an example of a new feature? How would you know it was a new feature if you saw it? That kind of thing.

 

[Hespera]

Proponents of ID must then accept OXBOW lakes as being the product of a designer!

What next; Fairies and leprechauns?

Hey be nice sarcasm isnt properly a part of this thread

 

[savedbyjesus]

But how is it quantified? How could you determine that Creature A has X units of novelty, while Creature B has Y units of novelty?

And what constitutes a novel trait or form anyway? Is a sixth digit on each hand a novel trait? What about thumbs that are 1mm longer than before? 1cm longer? What's the difference between a novel trait and mere variation between individuals?

If a modern specimen has lost some trait that its fossil ancestor had, is that a novel trait?

I don't disagree that examining and comparing modern to ancient creatures is an interesting endeavor, but actually quantifying and applying the findings won't really work.

Of course the question is hard and I cannot answer it now. That is why we study?

By the same token by looking at a fossil skeketon at what point is it classified as a fish and not some other creature?

Kind regards,

Paul

 

[Hespera]

But how is it quantified? How could you determine that Creature A has X units of novelty, while Creature B has Y units of novelty?

And what constitutes a novel trait or form anyway? Is a sixth digit on each hand a novel trait? What about thumbs that are 1mm longer than before? 1cm longer? What's the difference between a novel trait and mere variation between individuals?

If a modern specimen has lost some trait that its fossil ancestor had, is that a novel trait?

I don't disagree that examining and comparing modern to ancient creatures is an interesting endeavor, but actually quantifying and applying the findings won't really work.

Why wont it "work"? I think its a great idea. A thorough study of comparative vertebrate anatomy would answer any questions he might have.

 

[savedbyjesus]

Oh my.. sorry not to make myself clear. i meant, what would you consider an example of a new feature? How would you know it was a new feature if you saw it? That kind of thing.

That is what I want to find out.

Kind regards,

Paul

 

[Skaloop]

Why wont it "work"? I think its a great idea. A thorough study of comparative vertebrate anatomy would answer any questions he might have.

Well, for starters, one would have to define "novelty" and how to quantify it. Then there's the problem of the incompleteness of fossils. If some trait was a soft-tissue trait, it would not be fossilized, so can't be compared to modern creatures. There's also things like skin, feather, or fur colour.

So while it's good to study the things we can compare, we can't really come up with a definitive measure between the two.

 

[Split Rock]

Of course the question is hard and I cannot answer it now. That is why we study?

By the same token by looking at a fossil skeketon at what point is it classified as a fish and not some other creature?

Kind regards,

Paul

This is often quite arbitrary. Is Tiktaalik roseae a fish or a tetrapod? Some are calling it a "fishapod."
http://www.devoniantimes.org/index.html

Evolution predicts the existance of such fossils. Does I.D.?

 

[ragarth]

Maybe because Darwinan evolution has had 150 years of time to become established?

Like all science it's a progression.

Regards,

Paul

I agree, science is a progression, but the progression is towards theories that answer 'more' of the questions as questions arise, or theories that answer questions in a 'better' way. The 'more' property is pretty easy, the more questions a theory answers the more it becomes adopted, the 'better' is more complex. Generally, an answer is considered 'better' when an application of occam's razor shows said answer to be more likely. In the case of evolution vs ID, evolution answers more questions, and where the two overlap, evolution provides the simpler and therefore better solutions.

 

[savedbyjesus]

This is often quite arbitrary. Is Tiktaalik roseae a fish or a tetrapod? Some are calling it a "fishapod."


Evolution predicts the existance of such fossils. Does I.D.?

So it's open to interpretation? There is no definitive answer this is a fish and this is not?


Regards,


Paul

 

[Hespera]

So it's open to interpretation? There is no definitive answer this is a fish and this is not?
Regards,
Paul

Well, think, how do you decide what something is? You look at its features, inside and out, and make a call.

Take a fish. We'd all agree that a trout is a fish. That a salamander is an amphibian, a lizard a reptile.

You cannot tho, say "this is 100% reptile, it has no features in common with an amphibian" Because in fact, they have far more features in common than are different.

Reptile and bird, the same; they are very closely related. True, a duck is a baird, a turtle is a reptile. But... what about a creature with teeth and a long tail, and, feathers? Bird? Reptile? Neither?

The answer like with all vertebrates is that it is part of a continum. You can draw certain lines for the sake of convenience but it doesnt mean there are bright line distinctions to be made.

As to novel features: any structure you will find in any vertebrate has its origin somewhere deep in the history of the vertebrates. Nothing is "novel" in the sense that it does not have roots in earlier animals.

 

[savedbyjesus]

This is often quite arbitrary. Is Tiktaalik roseae a fish or a tetrapod? Some are calling it a "fishapod."


Evolution predicts the existance of such fossils. Does I.D.?

Yes it predicts design for a specific habitat.


Also we have similar creatures alive today living in probably similar shallow water areas, what does it prove?

Kind regards,

Paul

 

[savedbyjesus]

Well, think, how do you decide what something is? You look at its features, inside and out, and make a call.

Take a fish. We'd all agree that a trout is a fish. That a salamander is an amphibian, a lizard a reptile.

You cannot tho, say "this is 100% reptile, it has no features in common with an amphibian" Because in fact, they have far more features in common than are different.

Reptile and bird, the same; they are very closely related. True, a duck is a baird, a turtle is a reptile. But... what about a creature with teeth and a long tail, and, feathers? Bird? Reptile? Neither?

The answer like with all vertebrates is that it is part of a continum. You can draw certain lines for the sake of convenience but it doesnt mean there are bright line distinctions to be made.

As to novel features: any structure you will find in any vertebrate has its origin somewhere deep in the history of the vertebrates. Nothing is "novel" in the sense that it does not have roots in earlier animals.

So by that logic I would say if we have that much trouble defining creatures we have full access to how much more difficult trying to form relationships from bones alone?

Also if we based modern species on skeletons alone it would seriously reduce the number of species none to us.

Do you think if we took all modern dogs known to us and buried the skeletons in different strata and then dug them up we would say they were the same species and able to interbreed?

Regards,

Paul

 

[Hespera]

So by that logic I would say if we have that much trouble defining creatures we have full access to how much more difficult trying to form relationships from bones alone?

Also if we based modern species on skeletons alone it would seriously reduce the number of species none to us.

Do you think if we took all modern dogs known to us and buried the skeletons in different strata and then dug them up we would say they were the same species and able to interbreed?

Regards,

Paul

1. No, not at all. The skeletons are highly diagnostic, you dont need the soft parts to tell you what something is.

2. You mean "known" to us? And no, why would it do that?

3. The "different strata" is too hypothetical to make sense. Easy fake to figure out. But lets say you could do that. Dog bones are dog bones, where ever you find them.

As to interbreed, sure! Dog bones are very distinctively dog bones. You can interbreed dogs, coyotes, wolves now, any old kind of dog can interbreed. What is your point here?

 

[Hespera]

Yes it predicts design for a specific habitat.


Also we have similar creatures alive today living in probably similar shallow water areas, what does it prove?

Kind regards,

Paul

What are you referring to with "similar creatures alive today"?

kind regards to you too..
XC

 

[Skaloop]

Do you think if we took all modern dogs known to us and buried the skeletons in different strata and then dug them up we would say they were the same species and able to interbreed?

Most likely not. Which is expected from their being found in different strata.

The thing about using dogs in your example is that they have been subject to artificial selection, primarily based upon physical appearance and traits. This greatly accelerates the effects of the selection process. But the sexual compatibility of the different breeds is not generally subject to these artificial pressures, and as such would not have as much disparity between breeds. Even though any breed of dog can technically reproduce with any other breed (even though extreme measures may be required) doesn't change the fact that lots of times they won't do it of their own volition.

Have you ever seen a Great Dane-Chihuahua mix? I doubt you ever will. Sexual separation is not just being unable to interbreed, it is also being unwilling.

 

[Hespera]

Most likely not. Which is expected from their being found in different strata.

The thing about using dogs in your example is that they have been subject to artificial selection, primarily based upon physical appearance and traits. This greatly accelerates the effects of the selection process. But the sexual compatibility of the different breeds is not generally subject to these artificial pressures, and as such would not have as much disparity between breeds. Even though any breed of dog can technically reproduce with any other breed (even though extreme measures may be required) doesn't change the fact that lots of times they won't do it of their own volition.

Have you ever seen a Great Dane-Chihuahua mix? I doubt you ever will. Sexual separation is not just being unable to interbreed, it is also being unwilling.

I see we gave different answers to the same question.

You are right, we'd figure that they were different species, if they looked that different and were fond widely seperated in time and space.

Of course, the definition of "species" is far from a fixed one. Its a convenience moslty.

As to interbreed.... cow and bison can interbreed. Just, that as a practical thing they usually dont.

 

[Split Rock]

So it's open to interpretation? There is no definitive answer this is a fish and this is not?


Regards,


Paul

It has a combination of fish and tetrapod characteristics. Such as we would expect from a transitional species. Again I ask... does ID predict this?

 

[Skaloop]

Yes it predicts design for a specific habitat.

OK, that's a prediction, but is that what we find? What exactly does "design for a specific habitat" mean? For example, one sort of habitat is the ocean. But the "designs" of ocean-dwelling creatures vary greatly, from jellyfish to coral to sponges to barnacles to sharks to lobsters to stingrays to sea otters to plankton to dolphins to eels to whales... I could go on. And that's not even counting plant life.

Also, why do all mammals have three earbones in the middle ear, whereas no non-mammals have three earbones in the middle ear. Mammals live in all sorts of habitats; do such habitats all lend themselves to this same "design?" Non-mammals also live in all sorts of habitats; wouldn't at least some of them not also benefit from this "design" for the middle ear?

This is readily predicted by evolution, but not so much by design.

 

[savedbyjesus]

Most likely not. Which is expected from their being found in different strata.

The thing about using dogs in your example is that they have been subject to artificial selection, primarily based upon physical appearance and traits. This greatly accelerates the effects of the selection process. But the sexual compatibility of the different breeds is not generally subject to these artificial pressures, and as such would not have as much disparity between breeds. Even though any breed of dog can technically reproduce with any other breed (even though extreme measures may be required) doesn't change the fact that lots of times they won't do it of their own volition.

Have you ever seen a Great Dane-Chihuahua mix? I doubt you ever will. Sexual separation is not just being unable to interbreed, it is also being unwilling.

Hmm interesting so your saying if a white person does not which to reproduce with a black person a form of speciation has occurred?


The only reason I put the dog example in the questions above was to point out if we were being intellectually honest we would group and sort them and postulate common ancestry from them.

What are you referring to with "similar creatures alive today"?

kind regards to you too..
XC

A mudskipper for example.

1. No, not at all. The skeletons are highly diagnostic, you dont need the soft parts to tell you what something is.

So I will ask you again from a skeleton alone at what point do you classify it as a fish?

2. You mean "known" to us? And no, why would it do that?

Sorry I don’t know what you mean?

3. The "different strata" is too hypothetical to make sense. Easy fake to figure out. But lets say you could do that. Dog bones are dog bones, where ever you find them.

It is just a hypothetical question can you use your imagination? The point of the question is for you to admit (or not to admit) if you were intellectually honest you would group and sort them and postulate common ancestry from them.

As to interbreed, sure! Dog bones are very distinctively dog bones. You can interbreed dogs, coyotes, wolves now, any old kind of dog can interbreed. What is your point here?

See above.

OK, that's a prediction, but is that what we find? What exactly does "design for a specific habitat" mean? For example, one sort of habitat is the ocean. But the "designs" of ocean-dwelling creatures vary greatly, from jellyfish to coral to sponges to barnacles to sharks to lobsters to stingrays to sea otters to plankton to dolphins to eels to whales... I could go on. And that's not even counting plant life.

Also, why do all mammals have three earbones in the middle ear, whereas no non-mammals have three earbones in the middle ear. Mammals live in all sorts of habitats; do such habitats all lend themselves to this same "design?" Non-mammals also live in all sorts of habitats; wouldn't at least some of them not also benefit from this "design" for the middle ear?

This is readily predicted by evolution, but not so much by design.

Well the quick answer would be we have classified animals by certain characteristics and to be placed in the mammal group you must have three ear bones?

I cannot answer why a designer used design A for mammals and design B for reptiles. How does this falsify I.D?

Also please explain what benefit non-mammals would have from the three-bone middle ear design as opposed to the design they have?



I would like to keep this debate focused on one item if you don’t mind as it is difficult to keep up with all the noise.


Without posting a link to a biased source can someone please falsify irreducible complexity? I would like to debate with some one not post links one to another from biased sources.

Kind regards,

Paul